Monday, January 2, 2012

Rep. Eric Watson Advocate for Transparency

“I have constantly advocated for greater transparency and
more careful oversight when it comes to the actions of the Court of the
Judiciary. We have a fantastic legal system in Tennessee but we need to ensure
the CoJ reviews complaints in a timely manner and acts swiftly when it is
called for. Requiring greater clarity in the judicial system is a legitimate
interest of the General Assembly and I am proud to help lead that effort.”

Rep. Watson: Discipline Of Judges Is Under Review
by Rep. Eric Watsonposted November 29, 2011

Like
most issues facing the Tennessee General Assembly, reform of the Court
of the Judiciary (COJ) is a complex and problematic issue. According to
its website, "The Court of the Judiciary was created by the legislature
to investigate and, when warranted, act on the complaints against
judges. Members are appointed by multiple authorities, including the
Supreme Court. The appellate court clerk also serves as clerk to the
Court of the Judiciary."

Our state constitution gives the responsibility for the regulation of
judges to the Tennessee General Assembly. In 1979, the legislature
established the COJ and granted it the authority to investigate
complaints against state judges. I was honored when House Speaker Beth
Harwell selected me to chair the Joint Senate and House Committee on the
COJ. Senator Mae Beavers was chosen by Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey to chair
the Committee on behalf of the Senate.

In September, hearings were held for two days and we heard from numerous
Tennesseans with concerns about how Tennessee handles the discipline of
judges. The committee also heard from the presiding Judge of the COJ
and other judges including Chancellor Jerri S. Bryant, who serves a
portion of our state House district. Everyone seems to agree that some
changes must be made. The type of reform we adopt has created much
discussion on Capitol Hill in Nashville.

Some believe that it is time to eliminate the COJ, while others believe
major improvements must be made; some suggest that a few minor
adjustments will solve the problems.

In 2005, the number of pages in the annual report was only four pages.
The 2011 report was 34 pages. The size of the report increased
dramatically in 2008 when the legislature began focusing more attention
on COJ activity. While the reporting has improved, much of the COJ's
work is still done secretly behind closed doors. One argument is that
complaints against judges should remain undisclosed if they have no
merit. Others argue that the public has the right to know about all
complaints and can then discern between a legitimate complaint and those
that are without value.

Another key area of discussion is the composition of the COJ. Currently,
it is composed of 16 members: 10 judges, three attorneys, and three lay
people. Many believe that the court should consist of more lay people,
with a minority of judges and attorneys. During our hearings it became
clear that it is difficult for a practicing attorney to discipline a
judge. There are two reasons: First, the Supreme Court for all practical
purposes controls the oversight of all judges. The state Supreme Court
also holds the law license of every attorney in the state. No attorney
wants to go against our state Supreme Court. Second, a practicing
attorney would be reluctant to correct someone who might be a friend of a
judge in his local county. Judicial officials, like all professional
organizations, are very closely tied to one another.

I look forward to hearing from you about our judicial system and your
ideas as we move forward with reform of the Court of the Judiciary.